|
Ranty-cat said:
I obviously find it repulsive. However, it’s not a huge deal as আপনি think it is. There is no "victim" when a work of fiction is created, and therefore no rights have been violated. The reason we have things like ages of consent, for example, is to acts of sexual predation against those who on balance are unlikely to fully understand the significance of what they're doing and act with an appropriate level of agency as a result. So while society obviously has an interest in limiting the kind of predation as I have described above, society has an equally compelling interest in limiting infringement on rights of creative expression. I'll be the first to say I think Nabikov was a terrible author, make no mistake.But if we ban hentai depicting characters that appear to be less than 18 years of age, then we also have little choice but to ban something like Lolita, দ্বারা Vladimir Nabikov. Now, a hard line must be drawn between visual প্রতিমূর্তি অথবা চলচ্ছবি depicting actual human persons engaged in sexual acts with visible nudity, and something animated, for example. In the former case, there is a victim and the law regards that as obscenity lacking any first amendment protection. In the latter case, there is no victim and the law regards that as creative expression protected দ্বারা the first amendment. That's the difference. Even if it is repulsive, but that isn't illegal. The প্রশ্ন of whether a company ought to "censor" content like that is আরো complicated, though. If a company censors anything, it has to censor everything because in the moment it acts as a censor it likewise acts as a publisher and assumes the same liability as a publisher (that is, at least, the direction I see the law going). So I'm not committed one way অথবা another on this. But my default is to corporate censorship in the same way as I would government censorship and for the same set of reasons. PS. The argument that watching violent pornography promotes sexual violence in its expression is pretty unsound. There is no evidence to support it, plenty of evidence against it.
|
|